(1.) The petitioner is the Client/Constituent of the first respondent, who is a Trading Member of National Stock Exchange of India limited, Chennai. The petitioner was having a single account and joint account along with her husband. The single Account is "F & O" segment. According to the petitioner, the first respondent involved itself in unauthorised trading in her account refused to transfer the securities from her pool account to dmat account effected sale after cut off date given by her and failed to square off the position. Thus, the petitioner suffered loss.
(2.) It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner has not placed the correct facts. She has been doing transactions in her "F & O"segment. That is the reason why, she asked the first respondent to square off the position. The petitioner's husband was receiving contract notes periodically. These contract notes clearly show the factum of transactions, as per the instructions given by her.
(3.) The Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner both on merit and on limitation by applying Bye Law 3 of Chapter II of NSE Bye Laws. Insofar as the issue pertaining to limitation is concerned, the Tribunal did not agree with the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of Limitation Act would apply as in the case of a normal suit in making a claim before the Tribunal. On merit, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the written complaint itself has been signed by both the petitioner and her husband bearing the signature of the latter. The contention that she did not do any trading was not correct in view of the contract notes and her own case that her request to square off the position was not considered. Accordingly, the claim was rejected and hence, the present original petition.